The people he was writing to didn't exist? That's a bit of a strange one. What on earth would have been the purpose of the writing, if almost everything contained within has no intended recipient, while the writer claims it does. Was the letter to the philippians not really a letter to the philippians? Was polycarps letter to the philippians meant for them? And what of the Roman Christians? did they not exist? Did Pope Linus not exist? This is an absolutely ridiculous stance where early christianity doesn't exist.
Strawman.
Do you understand the difference between a personal letter and a sermon?
These aren't personal letters, they're sermons to be read aloud to a congregation.
Big difference.
You'll recall my suggestion these Epistles are NOT a private correspondence.
They are sermons and even contradict Acts, as Ehrman points out.
Useful?
I think not.
Of interest to a biblical scholar, certainly.
Evidence the NT writers wrote the truth?
No
As for "Sermons not having value" you are correct, if that is all the letters were. Paul saying various things about how to achieve salvation are of little interest, but we have letters, there is more available than that. We can find out what Paul was up to, what sort of philosophical circles Paul was moving in, where Paul was lecturing, who he was spending time with, and so on. Also, once we accept that the recipients exist (sigh) we can deduce what some of the problems were for the early church, by looking at the issues Paul addresses.
But it isn't evidence.
This thread doesn't deal with the early church, in case you hadn't noticed.
Propaganda for what exactly? Many of the claims regarding authorities and law have been shown to be correct. Much of the book is just an inconsequential account of how various churches were set up. The speeches all sound the same, which is a bit suspicious, but ultimately if Acts is propaganda it achieves very little.
For propagating and afirming the faith of those of his curch.
In any case, it's nothing near evidence for the truth of the NT, is it.
The history of the early church would be better dealt with in a thread dedicated to that subject.
I don't understand what you mean? The sources we have available are what I used. With the arguments I gave, it seems likely that the gospels provide additional information about John the Baptist. What exactly were you wanting?
It seems likely?
Please stick to the subject of the thread.
Nobody claims to have been an eyewitness. I was arguing the common position that Luke thought he had an eyewitness for certain stories told by Jesus. The reasoning is that Luke claims to have an eyewitness source, even though two of his sources, mark and Q, were written down. The third source for Luke seems to recount stories in which Jesus is in a public place. For that reason, I think it's likely that an unnamed source (or sources) for Luke claimed to be an eyewitness.
Is this really the best you can offer by way of evidence the NT writers were telling the truth?
Speculation, inference and supposition?
I think you'd be better off in the threads which deal in those things.
This one deals with evidence the NT writers were telling the truth.
Over 500 pages.
No evidence.
The perfect christmas present 
Heck man I didn't mean to offend...
